A-Bomb

[LtSounders]

Hi, I've debated this topic before with buddies of mine and though it would be interesting to start. The Atom Bomb killed 10s of thousands of people, who where civilians, though ended the war earlier saving countless allied lives. Did ths US have this right, should wars be fought by just Soldiers?

Detailed nnformation on the casualties and affects of the atom bomb:
http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mp10.htm (http://www.codboards.com/redirect.php?http://www.yale.edu/lawweb/avalon/abomb/mp10.htm)

[imported_Shaggy]

I don't feel like reading whatever that link is to cuz Im lazy, so I'll just go by prior knowledge.

I'll just give some background info on the bombs, and such then voice my opinion on your question.


Military general In charge of the creation of the bomb: Geberal Lesley Groves


Two Nuclear Physicists in charge of the creation of it: Dr. Openhymier and Dr. Merryman

Time they had to complete it: 19 months

Time started: April 1943

Bomb names to be called while being created: The Devices or Gadgets

Dr. Merryman died of being exposed to plutonium before the bombs where dropped. He was killed when someone dropped a can of soda, and he jumped which caused the two plutonium rods to clash together and he had to hurry and get them apart, so he touched it with his bare hands, which exposed him to way to much radiation. He died approximatley 3 days later.

All scientists working on the bombs died within 15 years of the projects finish from radiotion poisoning.



The actual dropping of the bombs:

Name of the two bombs: Fat Man and Little Boy

On Augest 6th 1945 Little Boy was dropped on Hiroshima

On Augest 9th 1945 Fat Man was dropped on Nagasoki



Interesting Fact:

While at the trinity ( new mexico ) site where the test bomb was dropped, the Nutcracker sweet played throughout all the mens equipment and could not be turned off, even when switching to other radio frequencies. It's thought to be a phenoemna.





My opinon:

I think at the time of it's creation, it was thought to be an easy way to end the war, and that in reality it would save lives of many soldiers on both sides. More men then the expected citizens to be killed during the blasts. So at the time it was thought to be a easy solution to end the war and save lives.

At the time they didn't know the effects the bomb would have in many years since something of this caliber had never been done before.

So at the time it was a good idea.


Now, at the trinity site, this is the first year it's been opened for tourists to check out, because its take 60 years for the radation to clear.

So the radiotion of the bombs dropped on Japan should be clearing up soon.

Although the radation has since killed many civilians which half weren't even around during the war. It's probably equaled out to be around the same number we would have lost if the war continued.


So I feel it would be equaled out. And it's a possitive thing since we won the war.


Those are just my feelings though


Shag.

[imported_Shaggy]

P.S.

That took a hella long time to type. Especially cuz my computer shut down when I was half way through it the first time, and I had to restart the damn thing :doh:

[Wafflestomper]

We would have still won the war without it. However, millions of lives would have been lost on a direct invasion. Every Japanese citizen would fight to the death. (A good movie on this is Hiroshima, which chronicles both Japanese leaders and Americans and their lives from April 1945 (FDR dies)-August1945 (abomb) A Japanese officer states, "The Americans value life before honor.")

So dropping a bomb wasn't necessary, yet it was superior alternative. But, I have big doubts of the necessity of the Nagaskai bombing. While dropping two is probably a better choice than one (1 implies a one-time superweapon, 2 implies massive stockpiles), perhaps bombing Hiroshima and a purely military target maybe in the countryside would have been a better idea. Consider it, you still show you have more than 1 superweapon, and that you're not afraid to bomb large populations if necessary, but half of the casualties are admitted. Then maybe send a photograph of nuclear stockpiles to Emp. Hirohito, pointed at Tokyo.

I dunno. I just think that the 2nd bomb wasn't entirely a good idea, and maybe there could be 150,000 civilians still alive.

[illeagle]

I agree with PayDay, maybe if we dropped one, and ordered the Japanese to surrender, maybe more lives could have been saved.

[imported_Shaggy]

illeagle- we did offer then to surender, and they thought we didn't have a second bomb, so they said no we arn't surrendering so we dropped the second.


And who is PayDay?

[LtSounders]

Indeed, the second bomb wasnt necessary

[millermagic]

I think the first bomb would have been enough but the US didn't think so. Did it kill civillians or save lives, both. Maybe it could have been solved without so many casulties. But I like Nukes.

[Kobayashi]

An ground invasion of the Japanese home islands would have been one of the most costly operations of the second world war. Look at the casualties sustained by 'island-hopping'. I'd hate to hazard a guess at the casualty figures had the bombs not been dropped. Plus, you'd have got the Russians involved too, which couldn't be good in the Cold War climate. It's fathomable that they'd be an Eastern equivilent to the Berlin Wall. One of the great "what ifs" of history.

[papa_kulikov]

dropping one was bad....it killed thousands of innocent people that had nothing to do with the war...........i think it was a very bad mistake.........

[Recluse]

As I posted in another thread:

The Atomic bomb decision was made by US President Truman in 1945 because the US had taken all the smaller Pacific islands at great cost and were ready to focus on invading the island of Japan in order to finish the war.

Truman's war analysts and advisers estimated, based upon experience in the Pacific, that it would cost over 1 million US casualties to invade Japan and defeat the enemy, not to mention a greater number of Japanese casualties. Truman believed this potential yet realistic cost in US lives was so abhorrent that he decided to use the Atomic bomb in order to force Japan to surrender without causing more than 2 million combined casualties.

It was a horrific weapon, but its use resulted in the end of the war at a fraction of the cost in Japanese lives, and a complete avoidance of the cost in US lives. It was a choice of either one or the other, and I think Truman made the right choice.

=====

Until modern times, the idea of civilian casualties in war was just an accepted fact of war.

Everyone believed that any civilians that were killed in war were the fault of their leaders for leading their country into war in the first place, and that when you were at war with a country, it was the entire country, not just their army.

[LtSounders]

Good points Recluse...though let me play the devil's advocat.
Should wars be fought by soldiers only...after all they are there to fight? Or by a country as a whole for they claim full responsability for the actions of there nation?

[Recluse]

Originally posted by LtSounders@Mar 20 2004, 08:06 PM
Good points Recluse...though let me play the devil's advocat.
Should wars be fought by soldiers only...after all they are there to fight? Or by a country as a whole for they claim full responsability for the actions of there nation?
The problem I see is that War is extremely difficult to confine to just soldiers.

I mean, it would be easy if there was one spot on earth reserved for battles, and you sent your army to fight their army, and the winner gets the other's country, or their way, or whatever it is they want...but it doesn't work like that in real life.

If my country (US) was being overrun by an enemy army, I can guarantee that many "civilians" would be actively fighting the enemy...so how would you draw the distinction between "enemy" and "innocent civilian" in a case like that?

Iraq is similar, as was Vietnam, as will be any place where combatants can blend in with the local noncombatants and continue to fight.

We've somehow lost sight of the fact that the actual goal of war is to hurt the other side so much that they give up, thus ending the war and the death...and the faster you achieve this goal, the better.

Since support for war by any particular warring country's population is essential to maintaining the effort, will, and resilience necessary to prosecuting that war, it would seem to me that striking the civilian population may be an effective tactic for undermining support for the war...it worked for Al Qaida against Spain just recently.

[Slava45]

The a-bomb killed alot less civilians than b52 and b29 bomber raids in japan.
The problem with it is that It opened up the threat of our own destruction and the neuclear arms race of the cold war.

this video pretty much sums it up. http://www.ebaumsworld.com/endofworld.html]The (http://www.codboards.com/redirect.php?[url) End Of The World[/url]

[mcdarkness]

when the u.s. fire bobmed tokyo and other cities it made more deaths all the a bomb did was kill more innocent people,spread radiation that is still in japan due to the bombs,and cuase problems in the cold war and even today with north korea and the terrorists.